The U.S. Supreme Court is diving deep into a battle over President Donald Trump’s tariff powers with an extended hearing that could reshape America’s economic landscape.
Just The News reported that the Supreme Court has set an expanded 80-minute oral argument session for November 5, 2025, to tackle whether Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs is legally sound and whether the law itself oversteps by handing Congress’s taxing power to the executive branch.
Trump, in his second term, has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic vision, leveraging the IEEPA to slap at least 10% duties on imports from every nation trading with the U.S.
His goal? Boost American businesses and, as he put it, create “deals worldwide [that] benefit all Americans.”
Let’s rewind to the start: Trump’s tariff strategy, rolled out in early 2025, aimed to tilt global trade in favor of U.S. markets. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, these duties raked in $80.3 billion from January to July 2025, before offsets.
That’s a hefty sum, though the Congressional Budget Office warns it could hike consumer prices and pinch family budgets over the next decade with a projected $4 trillion in revenue.
Challengers, including private businesses and Democrat-led states like Oregon, aren’t buying the administration’s pitch. They argue Congress, not the president, holds the constitutional reins on taxation.
Their stance echoes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 7-4 ruling in August 2025, which affirmed a lower court decision that tariff authority belongs to lawmakers, even as it let Trump’s duties stand during the appeal.
The Federal Circuit majority didn’t mince words, stating, “We discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of this magnitude.” That’s a polite way of saying the president’s power grab might be on shaky ground.
If the Supreme Court agrees, it could yank a major revenue stream—potentially the highest import duties in nearly a century—right out from under the administration.
Fast forward to the Supreme Court’s prep for the big day: unlike the usual 60-minute arguments, this case gets 80 minutes on November 5, 2025.
The government snagged 40 minutes to defend its position, while two groups of private businesses challenging the tariffs shared 20 minutes through one representative. Democrat-led states, with Oregon at the helm, also get 20 minutes to make their case.
Not everyone got a seat at the table, though. Blackfeet Nation members, including Montana state Sen. Susan Webber and ranchers near the U.S.-Canada border, requested 15 minutes to argue how Trump’s tariffs burden their cross-border small businesses and family ranches.
The court denied their intervention last week, a decision finalized on Thursday, leaving their concerns to be hashed out in another jurisdiction.
That exclusion stings, especially for tribal plaintiffs who feel the direct squeeze of these policies on their livelihoods. While their voices won’t echo in the Supreme Court chamber, the broader debate over executive overreach versus economic strategy will surely reverberate. It’s a classic clash of principle versus pragmatism, and one side’s going to walk away bruised.
Trump’s tariffs aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet—they’re a linchpin of his plan to revive manufacturing and shift tax burdens, potentially easing the national debt.
A win at the Supreme Court would lock in a massive federal revenue source, at least for now. A loss, however, could unravel his economic agenda faster than a cheap import falls apart.
The administration’s argument hinges on the IEEPA granting broad authority to “regulate importation,” but critics call that a flimsy justification for what amounts to a presidential tax.
With consumer costs on the line, the Congressional Budget Office’s projection of reduced purchasing power for U.S. families looms large. This isn’t just a legal spat; it’s a referendum on who gets to control the nation’s purse strings.
Trump himself has signaled how much rides on this, noting that “a loss could be catastrophic for the U.S. economy.” That’s not hyperbole when you consider the scale of duties at play. If the court sides with challengers, expect a seismic shift in how trade policy gets made—or unmade.
At its core, this case asks two monumental questions: Does the IEEPA legally back Trump’s tariff spree, and if so, does it improperly cede Congress’s taxing power to the president? The answers will either cement executive flexibility in trade or slap hard limits on it. For a nation weary of bureaucratic overreach, the latter might feel like a long-overdue check on power.